Press Releases

Entries in Climategate
(20)

Will Gov. Walker Answer for His Koch-Backed, Big Oil-Approved Agenda – or Give the Cold Shoulder?

Laconia, NH – As Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) prepares to keynote a fundraising cruise around Lake Winnipesaukee, local climate voters are hot on his trail on a mobile inflatable iceberg, representing the melting polar icecaps, hoping to get some straight answers from the Wisconsin Governor on these key environmental questions:

1) Other than signing the oil tycoon Koch brothers’ “no climate tax” pledge promising not to support any legislation that would raise revenue to combat climate change, what else did you, Governor Walker, promise the billionaire polluters to become their favored presidential candidate?

2) Do you -- as your anti-environment policies would suggest -- count yourself among the Republican candidates who reject climate science despite the 97 percent agreement in the scientific community that climate change is real and man-made?

3) You’ve been given millions of rea$on$ by the Koch Brothers to officially refuse to comply with the President’s climate action plan that would reduce carbon pollution by 30 percent by 2030 and create more than a quarter of a million jobs to the U.S. economy by 2040, according to aindependent economic analysis. Do you have any alternative plan – or is it unofficially ‘whatever the Kochs say”?

4) Have you read the recent University of New Hampshire reports on climate change finding: “Rising seas pose significant risks to New Hampshire coastal communities and ecosystems, cultural resources and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and climate change-driven health impacts threaten to affect Granite State and New England residents who are vulnerable to rising temperatures, more precipitation and severe weather events”? How would you address these problems as president, or do you even consider them to be problems?

5) Considering that the oil baron Koch brothers have already spent millions of dollars backing your anti-environment, anti-worker agenda in Wisconsin and against efforts to recall you and have promised millions more await should you become the nominee, it’s clear they have a lot of money to burn. Do you really believe the Kochs and their Big Oil industry colleagues that pulled in companies pulled in $90 billion in profits last year need $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year? Would you as President sign or veto legislation repealing these wasteful Big Oil taxpayer subsidies? .

The action was sponsored by Americans United for Change, the pro-environment group behind www.RareIncidents.com.

U.S. crude oil production rose by the largest volume ever in its history, nearly 850,000 barrels per day, or 14.9 percent.

U.S. output of natural gas liquids reached an all-time high.

U.S. marketed production of natural gas set another all-time record, at 25.3 trillion cubic feet.

These records occurred in spite of President Obama’s red tape and bureaucratic footdragging, which has inhibited oil and gas production on federal lands. The preponderance of increased U.S. production has occurred on private and state lands.

Inside the BeltwayMyron Ebell

House Passes REINS Act with Anti-Carbon Tax Amendment

The House of Representatives on Friday, 2nd August, passed H. R. 367, the REINS Act, which would require House and Senate votes to approve proposed major regulations, by a vote of 232 to 183. Six Democrats and 226 Republicans voted Yes, while all the No votes came from Democrats. Eighteen Members did not vote. The REINS Act isn’t going anywhere in the Senate.

Earlier in the day, the House voted on an amendment offered by Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.) that would require congressional approval before the executive branch could implement a tax on carbon dioxide emissions using regulatory authority. That amendment was adopted by a vote of 237 to 176. 225 Republicans voted Yes. They were joined by twelve Democrats. All 176 No votes came from Democratic Members. Eighteen Members did not vote.

Rep. Scalise is chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, which has made a vote on a resolution opposing a carbon tax one of its top priorities. The amendment is somewhat narrower than H. Con. Res. 24, but the vote does put Members on the record on a carbon tax. The vote reveals that 176 Democratic Members of the House are not opposed to raising taxes. That vote could play a role in some districts in the 2014 congressional elections. A number of House Democrats lost their seats in 2010 because they had voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.

The twelve Democrats who voted for the anti-carbon tax amendment are: Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, John Barrow and Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Henry Cuellar and Filemon Vela of Texas, William Enyart of Illinois, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Collin Peterson and Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Nick Joe Rahall of West Virginia.

Whether the executive branch has authority to implement a carbon tax under the regulatory authority of the Clean Air Act or any other statute is highly dubious. However, several environmental pressure groups have been pushing the idea, and the Obama Administration has proved that it has little regard for the law.

On 1st August, the House also passed the Energy Consumers Relief Act by a vote of 232 to 181. Again, no Republicans voted against the bill. Nine Democrats voted for it. H. R. 1582 tries to set some limits on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to promulgate expensive new regulations. Again, the bill is not going anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

It was a big week rhetorically for the Obama Administration. Gina McCarthy on 30th July gave her first speech since being confirmed as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency by the Senate on 18th July by a 59 to 40 vote.

The Boston-area native spoke at Harvard University Law School and began by joking about how long it took to be confirmed (136 days).

McCarthy said that EPA’s top priority was climate change. She claimed that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would “feed the economic agenda of the country” and pleaded, “Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please?” Rather than killing jobs, McCarthy argued that, “We need to embrace cutting-edge technology as a way to spark business innovation.

Sorry, but we’re not going to stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs because they are killing jobs. Environmental regulations promulgated by the EPA since President Obama took office are raising energy prices and thereby making Americans poorer. Fortunately for the American economy (and also for President Obama’s re-election last year), the adverse effects of these regulations have been masked by the smart drilling technology revolution that is unlocking America’s vast shale oil and gas resources.

On 31st July, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell spoke to employees gathered at the department’s main building in Washington. In what was reported as a good-natured speech full of jokes, Jewell said, “I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of the Interior.” My CEI colleague Marlo Lewis comments on this astonishing threat.

It was reported that Jewell mentioned that in her 111 days as Secretary of the Interior she had flown enough miles to go around the Earth one-and-a-half times. Apparently, the irony of advocating radical cuts in greenhouse gas emissions while continuing an extremely high-carbon lifestyle escapes the new Secretary, as—to be fair—it escapes many wealthy and powerful people.

Across the StatesWilliam Yeatman

West Virginia

On August 1st, the West Virginia Democratic Party organized a delegation of Democratic lawmakers, business, and labor leaders that met at the White House with administration officials, including EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, and Heather Zichal, the President’s top climate advisor. Political leaders from the State included Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin, House Speaker Tim Miley, Rep. Nick Rahall, and Sen. Joe Manchin.

The delegation sought to impress upon EPA Administrator McCarthy the impact on West Virginia of the administration’s war on coal, the state’s primary industry. In particular, they expressed their concern about a regulation, known as the Carbon Pollution Standard, sent by EPA to the White House in early July. The original version of the regulation banned new coal-fired power plants, and the revised version is expected to effectively do the same.

McCarthy promised to seek “open dialogue.” But this should be of little solace to the West Virginia delegation, as EPA has demonstrated that it will ignore the state’s voice. In May 2010, I attended an EPA field hearing in Charleston on the agency’s proposal to block a surface coal mining project in Logan County. EPA justified its actions based on the need to protect a short-lived insect. There were 800 people in the audience, and only four of them supported EPA. Only weeks before, the Democratic-controlled State Legislature voted unanimously for a bill objecting to EPA’s actions. Despite this “open dialogue,” in which West Virginians overwhelmingly articulated their opposition, the agency proceeded to block the mining project, and thereby prevented the creation of 250 jobs that paid, on average $62,000.

The West Virginia delegation left without achieving any other commitments from the administration. Click here for a summary of reactions of the meetings participants by the Daily Caller.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

News You Can UseFossil Fuels to Dominate World Energy Use Through 2040

Fossil fuels will continue to supply nearly 80 percent of world energy use through 2040, according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook, which was released this week. Energy use in developing countries is projected to increase by 90 percent; in developed nations, energy use is projected to increase 17 percent. By 2040, China's energy demand is expected to be twice that of the U.S.

Inside the BeltwayWilliam Yeatman

McCarthy Shows Her Cards

In a June 25 speech, President Obama explained that Congressional inaction was a pretext for his administration to fight global warming by executive fiat.

Newly-confirmed EPA Administrator McCarthy got the message. According to InsideEPA, McCarthy said in a July 22 video message to agency employees, “We have a clear responsibility to act now on climate change. That's what President Obama has called on us, and the American people, so that we protect future generations.”

It is noteworthy that she didn’t mention the Congress. By significant bi-partisan margins, cap-and-trade policies have died repeatedly in the Senate. Of course, EPA’s authority to regulate climate change is derivative of the Clean Air Act. And yet, as my colleague Marlo Lewis has explained aptly,

EPA claims that its greenhouse-gas regulations derive from the CAA as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA*. But in the last Congress, after almost two decades of global-warming advocacy, Congress declined to give EPA explicit authority to regulate greenhouse gases, when Senate leaders mothballed cap-and trade legislation. A bill authorizing EPA to do exactly what it is doing now — regulate greenhouse gases under the CAA as it sees fit — would have been dead on arrival. The notion that Congress gave EPA such authority when the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, years before global warming emerged as a public concern, defies both history and logic.

*[As an aside, the Supreme Court is now in the process of determining whether it will revisit Mass v. EPA by reviewing the D.C. Circuit’s decision to uphold EPA’s climate regulatory regime.]

There’s another troubling aspect to McCarthy’s video memo. In it, she said that the agency will be taking an “all hands on deck” approach to implementing regulations to reduce greenhouse gases. Specifically, was speaking about diverting EPA’s limited resources into a regulation known as the New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases. Here’s the problem: This regulation is a discretionary responsibility. That is, EPA chose to do it. The Agency didn’t have to.

As I demonstrated in a study released earlier this month, EPA is out of compliance with roughly 98% of its non-discretionary responsibilities. These are duties that the Congress explicitly stipulated that EPA perform. Yet the agency is ignoring them! Instead, Administrator McCarthy is pouring resources into a discretionary responsibility. All of which raises an important question: Why is the EPA giving priority to duties chosen by unelected bureaucrats, rather than responsibilities assigned by elected representatives?

D.C. Circuit Renders a Welcome Decision on Ozone

In 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, the Congress created the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), a body of scientists whose job is to advise EPA on the setting of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

EPA is required to take CASAC's advice into account, and, when it publishes any NAAQS, the agency must explain any differences it had with CASAC’s advice. In 2006 and 2008, George W. Bush’s EPA promulgated revised NAAQS for particulate matter and ozone, respectively. Both of the regulations were set at levels that were less stringent than the range recommended by CASAC.

In a 2009 ruling, American Farm Bureau Federation v EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court rejected Bush’s 2006 NAAQS for particulate matter. The court reasoned that the agency had inadequately explained its differences with CASAC’s advice.

In a ruling announced on Monday, Mississippi et al. v EPA, this same court upheld Bush’s 2008 ozone NAAQS, despite the fact that it was less stringent than what CASAC had recommended. This time, the court found that EPA had adequately explained the difference.

By the Court's own admission in the Mississippi et al. v EPA opinion, there are no clear cut criteria by which EPA's reasoning is judged. Having read both opinions, I couldn’t discern any standard other than a judgment call. There are fourteen judges on the D.C. Circuit, which hears the preponderance of challenges to EPA rules, and they adjudicate cases in panels of three. As a result, it is entirely possible for the court to be of different minds on the same issue, which seems to be the case here. Only one judge served on both panels. I get the sense that the 2009 panel wanted to defer to CASAC, the 2013 panel wanted to defer to EPA, and each one found a reasoning to do so.

Whatever the case, it’s a welcome development. The 2009 American Farm Bureau Federation decision had suggested that EPA, in practice, did not have the discretion to disagree with CASAC. This was scary, because CASAC embers are taken from a talent pool of epidemiologists and practitioners of other dubious disciplines that always produce “scientific” results indicating the public health importance of their own work. As a result, it’s pretty much impossible to nominate a reasonable CASAC. If its power was unchecked, CASAC would not have limited itself. This is the rare case whereby affording the EPA administrator relatively more authority is a good thing, because the alternative is worse.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

CEI Analysts See Concerted Effort To Avoid Congress Because Ideas are Unpopular

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 25, 2013 – President Obama’s climate agenda released today is being done without public or congressional support and is being pursued in this way because he knows the peoples’ elected representatives would never approve these plans, say experts at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“Obama’s all-pain, no-gain agenda will cost jobs, drive up prices and have little effect on global emissions,” said Myron Ebell, director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment. “It is undemocratic, bordering on authoritarian.

“It confirms the Obama administration’s all-out war on coal, calls for more negotiations on a treaty the Senate will never ratify and displays an alarming lack of knowledge about the state of climate science. Congress should move immediately to defund as much of this as possible.”

The president also said his decision on whether to approve the Keystone pipeline project would depend largely on whether it increases total carbon emissions.

“President Obama should’ve announced his approval today of the Keystone pipeline,” Ebell said. “The fact he didn’t demonstrates that he’s still playing political games with this project, which has overwhelming public and congressional support.”

The president pledges to impose carbon dioxide emissions limits for existing as well as new power plants, strengthen efficiency standards for homes and appliances and encourage more development of renewable energy sources on public lands. Obama admits his plan calls mostly for actions he can take without congressional approval.

“He doesn’t want to go through elected officials because he knows if he put this plan in a bill and submitted it to Congress, it would be dead on arrival,” said Marlo Lewis, senior fellow in CEI’s Center for Energy and the Environment.

Lewis said all three elements of the president’s plan should be opposed. “Renewable energy is costly, intermittent and unreliable,” Lewis said. “If it weren’t a bad buy for consumers, Congress would not need to subsidize it in perpetuity, and 30 states and the District of Columbia would not need to mandate its use.”

Sam Kazman, general counsel for CEI, said the appliance efficiency standards limit consumer choice and mean “consumers will be victims, not beneficiaries.

“The current standards already have ruined such previously reliable appliances as top-loading washing machines and dishwashers. If these new higher-efficiency technologies promised by the White House are really so great, then why must they be mandated?”

But the administration’s proposed CO2 emission limits for existing power plants pose “the biggest risk to consumer welfare and the economy,” Lewis said.Christopher C. Horner, senior fellow at CEI and author of the 2012 “The Liberal War on Transparency,” research for which turned up the secret “Richard Windsor” email address of former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, said the proposal – which would drive a stake through coal-fired power plants nationwide – should come as no surprise.

“It’s more of the same,” Horner said. “It’s what he has done since this agenda was rejected by the democratic process. But the Constitution still says you have to go through that process to rewrite laws.

“He warned us in the now-famous YouTube video he would shutter all existing coal-fired power plants and “bankrupt” anyone who tried to build a new one – even though they provide 40 percent of our electricity and much of our competitive advantage.”

President Obama touts these measures as necessary to address a growing threat from a warming planet. But even pro-warming scientists have begun to admit a substantial gap exists between observations and climate model projections that suggests the “consensus” may have been wrong about the key issue of climate sensitivity,” Lewis said.

“A slew of recent studies discredit the ‘planetary emergency’ narrative,” Lewis said. “For instance, sea-change over the next century probably will be measured in inches, rather than feet.”